Randwick Racecourse Drive-in Cinema Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

Case [2010] NSWLEC 134



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Randwick Racecourse Drive-in Cinema Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2010] NSWLEC 134
PARTIES:

APPLICANT:
Randwick Racecourse Drive-in Cinema Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT:
Randwick City Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10491 of 2010
CORAM: Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- expedition of proceedings
LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
DATES OF HEARING: 29 June 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 29 June 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:
Ms L M Byrne, barrister
SOLICITORS:
Bartier Perry

RESPONDNENT:
Mr D Baird
SOLICITORS:
Marsdens


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      BISCOE J

      29 June 2010

      10491 of 2010

      RANDWICK RACECOURSE DRIVE-IN CINEMA PTY LTD v RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

      EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a motion by the applicant, Randwick Racecourse Drive-in Cinema Pty Ltd, for an order that the proceedings be expedited and ancillary orders.

2 The background is that the applicant lodged a development application with the respondent, Randwick City Council, for temporary use of part of the Randwick Racecourse as a drive-in cinema during the period July to September 2010.

3 The application was before the council on 25 May 2010, and again, on 22 June 2010. Between those dates the council made requests for information, which was provided. On 22 June 2010 the council resolved that the development application be deferred for further consideration at another council meeting to be held in the latter part of July 2010.

4 Unsurprisingly in those circumstances, the applicant commenced Class 1 proceedings in this Court appealing against the council's deemed refusal of the application.

5 Quite obviously, the development application is at risk of being wholly frustrated, even if it has merit, by the delay that has occurred.

6 In the circumstances, the council consents to expedition and the parties are agreed that a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 should be held on site next Monday morning, and directions made for the applicant to file and serve additional documents, and for the respondent to file and serve draft conditions of consent in the meantime.

7 In my opinion, it is an appropriate case for expedition of the proceedings. Accordingly, by consent, I make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order dated 29 June 2010, which I initial and place with the papers. Costs are reserved.

Details
AGLC
Randwick Racecourse Drive-in Cinema Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2010] NSWLEC 134
Case
[2010] NSWLEC 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Randwick Racecourse Drive-in Cinema Pty Ltd sought an expedited hearing before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales against the Randwick City Council. The applicant had submitted a development application for the temporary use of part of the Randwick Racecourse as a drive-in cinema during the period from July to September 2010. The Council had deferred the application for further consideration, which led to the applicant initiating Class 1 proceedings in the Court to appeal against the council's decision. The core issue before the court was whether the proceedings should be expedited due to the potential frustration of the development application if not addressed promptly.

The court was required to decide if the proceedings should indeed be expedited under section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. Given the risk of the development application being frustrated by the delay caused by the council's deferral, the court had to weigh the merits of expediting the proceedings. The court also had to consider the agreement between the parties to hold a conciliation conference and the need for further document exchanges before the conference.

The court found that expediting the proceedings was appropriate in the circumstances. The Randwick City Council consented to the expedition, and the parties agreed on a conciliation conference and additional document exchanges. The court issued orders in accordance with the minutes of order dated 29 June 2010, with costs reserved for a later determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.